16% of Americans do not believe in Climate Change.

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW Cult could end the debate by showing one lab experiment that controls for a 200PPM increase in CO2

But noooooooooooooooo

 

[skookerasbil]

This might as well be a big old group navel contemplation session.......because the science isn't mattering for the climate crusaders >>>





Is it me, or does anybody else see ALOT of green, red and orange??!!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Cuyo]

The warming fanatics haven't been able to win on science.. NOW -- they are desparately doing a PR hatchet job on opinions..

Saigon and GoldiRocks need a GOOD MEATY weather disaster to keep the tribe in line..

Respectfully as I can muster - What the holy fuck are you talking about?

SCIENCE has never faultered on the issue of global warming. There is not a scientific body on the PLANET that maintains a dissenting position.

The OP is simply pointing out that the evidence observable to laymen is reaching the point that big money interests are having trouble keeping people confused on the issue.

What do you have again to put up against the worldwide scientific community? John Bolaris and Bob Lutz?

Grow up.

Science has never taken a position on it because science is no more capable of taking a position than Buddhism is. Scientists, however, have been arguing about it for years, and will continue to do so. Anyone that tells you anything different is lying to you.

Yes, please go on and direct me to the reputable scientific body(ies) that maintain an AGW-denial position.

I'll wait.

 

[skookerasbil]

Respectfully as I can muster - What the holy fuck are you talking about?

SCIENCE has never faultered on the issue of global warming. There is not a scientific body on the PLANET that maintains a dissenting position.

The OP is simply pointing out that the evidence observable to laymen is reaching the point that big money interests are having trouble keeping people confused on the issue.

What do you have again to put up against the worldwide scientific community? John Bolaris and Bob Lutz?

Grow up.

Science has never taken a position on it because science is no more capable of taking a position than Buddhism is. Scientists, however, have been arguing about it for years, and will continue to do so. Anyone that tells you anything different is lying to you.

Yes, please go on and direct me to the reputable scientific body(ies) that maintain an AGW-denial position.

I'll wait.

irrelevant s0n..........

For all the "consensus" science, the climate crusaders haven't moved the goalposts a single yard in the last 20 years in terms of our methods of generating energy. Renewables are still laughable and will be for decades.


This science debate on climate is nothing more than an internet hobby in 2013.

 

[SSDD]

You might then also admit that a great many engineers have absolutely no training in any field that would provide any useful insight climate.

Well there is the root of your problem. You don't know the difference between a real scientist and someone who has what amounts to a liberal science degree. Engineers live applied science. If you want to know what happens in the physical world, ask an engineer, not an academic.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

So you think that an electrical engineer is a better person to turn to for information on climate than a biologist, for instance?

Interesting.

 

[gslack]

LOL, Saigon think...

he can't prove it, he can't win a debate on it, so he gets an opinion poll and says, a lot of people believe in it...

A lot of people believe in a kindly,omnipotent being who loves everyone, and created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th too.. But you guys riducule those people who take things on faith... Irony...

 

[Missourian]

Five time in the 19th century it snowed on the 4th of July in Maryland.

In 1816, there was no summer...freezing cold throughout June, July and August.

Because Mount Tambora blew up.

Missouri was once under a vast sea.

Man walked from Eurasia to North America.

Climates change.

Without our help or hindrance.

Logic failure.

The fact that climate has changed without humans doing it in the past in no way prevents humans from changing climate now.

But, the fact the climate has changed without humans intervention in the past bolsters the argument that climate is changing in the present without human intervention.

Which was exactly the point.

Especially in light of the 17 year plateau we are currently experiencing.

 

[Saigon]

Missourian -

But, the fact the climate has changed without humans intervention in the past bolsters the argument that climate is changing in the present without human intervention.

Not in the slightest - although it's an understandable assumption.

Nature does change of its own accord. It changes because something causes it do so.

The CO2 we realise into the atmosphere is one cause, but it is not the only cause that we know of.

Going back into distant history we know that massive volcanic activity has caused changes in climate. Likewise bursts of solar activity can influence climate.

The thing is - these are things are know about, things we can chart, which means we also know when they are NOT occuring.

In the 20th century, we can rule out things like massive volcanic activity; while at the same time we can measure the rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

 

[Missourian]

Less Than Half in U.S. and Britain Believe in Man-Made Climate Change | Angus Reid Public Opinion

 

[Saigon]

Missourian -

If you'd rather believe blog surveys of their members than those conducted by independent polling organisations, go right ahead.

I have no idea why you would, though, especially when you don't buy the result any more than I do.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

The fact that every major scientific body on earth confirms climate change science is VERY significant.

Let us know when dismissing scientific opinion become meaningful.

I see you're avoiding my posts like the plague.

I have you on Ignore Mode, so very rarely see your posts. Given 90% of your posting seems to be devoted to flouncing, pouting and abuse, I feel confidant that I am not missing a great deal.

Let us know when one of their peer reviewed papers doesn't get destroyed by a mere statistician. That is the level to which climatology has sunk. In 30 years the practitioners have so debased it that the science of climatology as a whole is a running joke.

Pathetic. And I'm glad you have me on ignore, shows your fundamental lack of character and honesty right mr. Finnish man who doesn't know BASIC Finnish geography?

You are a fraud just like climatology has become.

And to demolish your stupid OP once again here are the facts of the matter when it comes to polling peoples opinions of the farce that is global warming....enjoy your epic fail 'cause I sure am!



Poll: Many Americans not all that concerned about climate change

Poll: Many Americans not all that concerned about climate change ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Americans Among Least Concerned About Climate Change

Americans Among Least Concerned About Climate Change


New EU Poll: Europeans No Longer Concerned About Climate Change

"Last year a paltry 5% of all Europeans rated climate change as their most pressing concern. In the new poll the percentage has gone down to 4%. Most likely climate change will soon disappear completely, despite of the barrage of alarmist propaganda produced in Brussels (and funded by European taxpayers).

Only in Malta (22%), Sweden (19%) and Germany (10%) does the number get into double digits. Even in Hedegaard’s home country Denmark, only 9% of the people rate climate change as their main concern. And in seven countries Slovakia, Hungary, Portugal, Spain, Latvia, Estonia and Greece the number is zero (0%)."


http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb79/eb79_first_en.pdf

 

[westwall]

Missourian -

But, the fact the climate has changed without humans intervention in the past bolsters the argument that climate is changing in the present without human intervention.

Not in the slightest - although it's an understandable assumption.

Nature does change of its own accord. It changes because something causes it do so.

The CO2 we realise into the atmosphere is one cause, but it is not the only cause that we know of.

Going back into distant history we know that massive volcanic activity has caused changes in climate. Likewise bursts of solar activity can influence climate.

The thing is - these are things are know about, things we can chart, which means we also know when they are NOT occuring.

In the 20th century, we can rule out things like massive volcanic activity; while at the same time we can measure the rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

According to EVERY SCIENTIFIC AXIOM Missourian is absolutely correct. The PRINCIPLE OF UNIFORMITARIANISM covers his assertion exactly.

It is only in the addled brains of the climate fraudsters that fundamental scientific axioms are ignored.

That's why you're losing...

 

[Boss]

Missourian -

But, the fact the climate has changed without humans intervention in the past bolsters the argument that climate is changing in the present without human intervention.

Not in the slightest - although it's an understandable assumption.

If it's a fact, it's not an assumption. It's an undeniable fact.

Nature does change of its own accord. It changes because something causes it do so.

This is true, but it is something sudden, and of great magnitude, not mankind's daily routine activities.

The CO2 we realise into the atmosphere is one cause, but it is not the only cause that we know of.

I assume you mean "release" and not "realise" here, and the amount of CO2 man releases into the atmosphere, pales in comparison to the CO2 released by natural sources. One single mid-size volcanic eruption, produces more CO2, than mankind has produced in all of human history.

Going back into distant history we know that massive volcanic activity has caused changes in climate. Likewise bursts of solar activity can influence climate.

Again, these are events of enormous proportion that happen suddenly. But case in point, what happens when one of these events occur? Does the Earth's ecological systems collapse? Does it wipe out all life forms on the planet, or send the thermometers soaring out of control? Melting all the ice and flooding coastlines? Of course not, we experience a period of climate change and over time, the planet adjusts and returns to normal again. This should indicate, even to a stupid person, that it's virtually impossible for man to have such an impact as to "destroy the planet" with CO2. It's just not going to happen, even IF we ever got to the point of massively dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, enough to cause a climatic change, we could reverse this in a matter of a few years by stopping. But to even reach this level, we would literally have to be TRYING to do this, and that isn't ever going to happen. Our minimal effect is erased by mother nature, almost as soon as it happens.

The thing is - these are things are know about, things we can chart, which means we also know when they are NOT occuring.

In the 20th century, we can rule out things like massive volcanic activity; while at the same time we can measure the rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

We can rule out what? Volcanoes have erupted in the 20th century, dude. There have been sunspots and solar flares as well. The CO2 levels have been rising for the past 10,000 years or so, was that a result of industrialization before industrialization was invented? Again, a single mid-size volcanic eruption, creates more greenhouse gasses than man has created in the entire history of humanity. If you want to save the planet from CO2, I suggest you find a way to stop volcanoes from erupting. Or is your idiot ass figuring if we can get man to cut back, the volcanoes will follow suit?

 

[ScienceRocks]

The question that should be asked is

1.Is solar or wind good?
2. Is cleaning up coal good?
3. Can increasing fuel standards that allow for more miles per gallon, good?

If you agree with all...I don't understand how the general policies are that extreme.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW -

As is so often the case, if you wish to post something relevant and on-topic, I will respond to it.

Let me get this straight, you post a claim that biologists signed off on something they don't know about, I point out that in the field the are knowledgeable about they admit that their primary indicator of the impact of climate change, species extinction, they really don't know how many species there are, how many are dying, or how may are evolving, and you think that is irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant?

Is it irrelevant because it doesn't fit your narrative?

Meanwhile, biologists remain our best source of information on the biological impact of climate change, whether you like it or not. Certainly organisations representing biologists have an agenda - and it is called Biology.

Which is exactly my point, if they can't actually tell how much climate change is impacting the planet, or if that impact is actually negative, you surely can't. Yet you dismiss it as irrelevant.

Somehow I don't see how "talking to someone" is a better option than getting information on biology from the organisations that represent biologists.

You don't see how talking to an actual biologist rather than taking information that comes from an organization with a political agenda? Those organizations do not represent biologists, they exist for other purposes entirely.

For instance, this from the US Institute of Microbiology:

Global Environmental Change — Microbial Contributions, Microbial Solutions (PDF), American Society For Microbiology, May 2006 They recommended "reducing net anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere” and “minimizing anthropogenic disturbances of” atmospheric gases. Carbon dioxide concentrations were relatively stable for the past 10,000 years but then began to increase rapidly about 150 years ago…as a result of fossil fuel consumption and land use change. Of course, changes in atmospheric composition are but one component of global change, which also includes disturbances in the physical and chemical conditions of the oceans and land surface. Although global change has been a natural process throughout Earth’s history, humans are responsible for substantially accelerating present-day changes. These changes may adversely affect human health and the biosphere on which we depend. Outbreaks of a number of diseases, including Lyme disease, hantavirus infections, dengue fever, bubonic plague, and cholera, have been linked to climate change."

that is exactly my point. If we are talking about climate going back 10,000 years almost as little sense as using the same time span to discuss the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. If we go back further. like 40 times as far, we see that CO2 is cyclic, and has actually been higher than it is now quite a few times.

I think we can agree that the Institute are neither rabid pinkos nor prone to bouts of hysteria and emotion. Hence - why not listen to what they have to say?

Keep on thinking that, I refuse to take an opinion without evidence. At this point, I have no idea what the political inclinations of that group is. I do, however, know that they are quite adept at cherry picking data in the pursuit of an agenda, whatever it is.

I have to say, your posting the last week has been extraordinarily hapless, even by your standards.

Is that because you can't handle the fact that you know less than you think you do? I have told you, more than once, that reading a book does not make you an expert. It does, however, make you dangerous.

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Westwall -

The fact that every major scientific body on earth confirms climate change science is VERY significant.

Let us know when dismissing scientific opinion become meaningful.

I see you're avoiding my posts like the plague.

I have you on Ignore Mode, so very rarely see your posts. Given 90% of your posting seems to be devoted to flouncing, pouting and abuse, I feel confidant that I am not missing a great deal.

it is only significant if you prove they are right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

This is the difference between relying on organizations with agendas, and talking to people. Not that a self declared expert on everything because he read a book would understand thinking.

He will ignore the study that found that most scientists (not to be confused with political heads of organizations) are not on the AGW crazy train till CO2 actually can cause warming...what I mean is that he will never acknowledge it because it is in conflict with his faith and his faith is strong. He believes the political heads of organizations who are responsible for funding and such actually represent the positions of the membership and ignores hard evidence to the contrary.

Of course he will, because he read a book about it.

 

[Saigon]

The question that should be asked is

1.Is solar or wind good?
2. Is cleaning up coal good?
3. Can increasing fuel standards that allow for more miles per gallon, good?

If you agree with all...I don't understand how the general policies are that extreme.

Indeed.

Although I don't think wind is a particularly good technology myself....at least it is limited in use.

But I totally agree that cleaning the environment would be worth doing even if emissions were not the issue.


QW -

Biologists remain our best source of information on biology.

Biology remains a key field in understanding climate change and its potential impacts.